Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

Clause 3 - Resolution of Disputes

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 8, in page 4, line 20, after `authority', insert `, acting in good faith,'.[Mr. Boswell.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 27, at end insert
`and the authority must make that right clear to parents in advance of any procedure under this section.'.

Jacqui Smith: Before we broke for lunch, I was trying to convince hon. Members that the resolution of disputes procedures proposed in the clause would be both neutral and independent, so amendment No. 8 was unnecessary. I had been questioned about the extent to which it was possible to ensure that all local education authorities fulfilled certain standards in the performance of those services. It is worth pointing out that, as a Department, we fund the national parent partnerships network, one of whose jobs is to share good practice in this area as well as in the area of parent partnerships, which we discussed when we considered the previous clause.
 I emphasised, too, that we were in the process of finalising the chapter in the revised code about working in partnership with parents, in the light of consultation responses. The code will set out minimum standards that we expect dispute prevention and resolution services to meet, as it does for parent partnership services. That will include the requirement for the services to be neutral and to involve an independent element, which will ensure that parents have confidence in them. As I said when I talked about parent partnership services, LEAs will have to have regard to the statutory guidance in the code of practice that will set out those minimum standards, with the same safeguards that I outlined in the previous debate. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will feel able to withdraw the amendment. 
 I can help the hon. Gentleman on amendment No. 9, too. I reiterate the response given by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone at the Grand Committee stage, as reported in the Official Report CWH 112. Hon. Members will remember that the discussion centres on the question whether engaging dispute resolution would affect a parent's right to appeal to the SEN tribunal. As my noble Friend said in another place, the Government recognise that it is essential that parents know that engaging in the new informal arrangements for preventing and resolving disagreements does not compromise their right of appeal to the SEN tribunal. We believe that that is best achieved through regulations. 
 I am happy to give an assurance that we will use the regulation-making powers provided for in the Bill to require LEAs to inform parents about their arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes and that, if parents take advantage of those additional services, their entitlement to appeal to the tribunal will not be affected in any way. LEAs will also need to inform parents of the statutory time limit for lodging an appeal and that the dispute resolution can run alongside the appeals process. 
 We envisage that chapter 2 of the revised SEN code of practice will reiterate the need to inform parents about how the arrangements will work and that they do not affect their right to appeal. The regulation-making powers mentioned earlier are set out in the Bill, in clause 8 and schedule 8. I hope that, having heard my assurances, the hon. Member for Daventry feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Boswell: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for taking pains to go through the considerations put before her. A potentially negative way of interpreting the search in which the Committee is collectively engaged would be to put pressure on local authorities, which are not behaving as well as they might in this area. More positively, one might encourage them gradually to emulate good practice and to ensure that the measures are a positive benefit to their affairs and not an awkward hoop through which they must leap.
 That thought is nowhere more appropriate than when considering the potential for putting pressure on inevitably vulnerable or comparatively inexperienced parents who feel that their rights amounted simply to a friendly chat and did not extend as far as taking the matter to a proper tribunal, if necessary. Having been involved in the establishment of the tribunal and having served, although in a different capacity, on a tribunal, I consider it important to have that backstop. 
 The Minister will remember my saying on Second Reading that we would not want the tribunal to be the first resort, but it is essential that there is a last resort. She has helpfully explained the guidance and how it is being set up to encourage local authorities to act well, and she repeated the specific safeguard that was enunciated by her noble Friend Baroness Blackstone. We are satisfied with her response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
`(ca)such other educational institutions within the maintained sector as may from time to time be designated by the Secretary of State with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.'.
 I need not detain the Committee long. The other day, we had a discussion on the multiplication of various sorts of educational institutions, if not in substance, in nomenclature. Some of those may be and, in this case are, non-maintained but within the private sector, and local authorities may buy into them and secure provision for pupils with special educational needs. The amendment would ensure that no one is left out and that, if a new category comes along or there is some arrangement about which we had not previously thought, it can be relatively easily accommodated within the entirely sensible rules. We want people to be able to use a wide range of different educational establishments. It is concomitant on that that if disputes arise, the dispute procedure should cover the whole area, not part of it. I am sure that the Minister will say that that includes the private non-maintained sector as well as the maintained sector. That is a sensible approach and I look forward to her reassurances.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for Daventry is right about the purpose of new section 332B(8). It will ensure that the resolution of disputes procedure is carried out in relation to disputes between parents and the broadest possible range of schools. That is the reason for the list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the same would apply for any schools that came into being under future legislation. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary, for similar reasons to those that I outlined on Tuesday.
 The Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to provide for categories of schools that may come into being in future. Any such schools will be created by primary legislation. Their classification will be subsequently inserted into the necessary legislation to achieve the effect that the hon. Gentleman wants. I agree that any future categories of schools that a Government might consider appropriate to determine would need to be covered by the dispute resolution measures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our proposal would have that effect.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter. She might be tempted to say that I tabled the amendment twice in order to hear her answer twice. It was the same answer, and I believe that it is substantially convincing. However, she has an even greater faith in the Bill's draftspeople than I might have, given my previous experience. I hope that neither she nor I will ever find that a little error has been made. I shall discuss that in a subsequent debate, but not now. Following those assurances, I need merely beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Compliance with Orders

Tim Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 6, after `order', insert
`as promptly as practicable, and in all cases'.
 This is unlikely to be a long or especially contentious debate. It is consistent with our recent debates on amendments that relate to what might be called the good faith of local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to secure not simply literal-minded compliance by a local authority with the terms of the tribunal hearing but what might loosely be termed a proactive and positive response. 
 As an analogyand a confessionI am sure that we are all familiar, perhaps as a result of writing articles for the local press or working for colleagues in the House, with being up against deadlines. Most of us find them helpful, as about two hours before D-day or H-hour we suddenly realise that we had better do something about that article that we have known about for the past six months, and we do it. They are a good catalyst for action. 
 In saying that, I do not suggest that it is acceptable for people to go beyond the requirements of the tribunal order. However, if a local authority, whether through ineptitude or because it is resisting or has not accepted the tribunal's decision, runs right up to the wire and does nothing about an order until the last possible moment, that is unacceptable. 
 It is to be hoped that the tribunal's order has been realistic, and realistically the matter may not be concluded until the last possible moment. However, the amendment relates to circumstances in which the matter could have been sorted out earlier and in which the authority could quickly take action. It is designed to avoid creating a perverse situation whereby the authority has a disincentive to act until the last possible moment, rather as I jocularly described in relation to our writing articles to deadlines. 
 If the action required is the right action to take and the authority could take that action promptly, the authority should not wait until the deadline but make a fist of starting. The amendment involves a reasonable test of the reasonability of an authority's actions in relation to special educational needs and whether it should start the process as soon as possible rather than waiting for the last possible moment. It was tabled with that consideration in mind.

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman points out, the clause is designed to reinforce and strengthen parental rights in relation to appeals directed to the tribunal. It will require LEAs to comply with SEN tribunal orders within a prescribed timetable, and failure to do so will leave an LEA open to direction by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate.
 The amendment is unnecessary and potentially confusing. The regulations to be made under the clause are informed by detailed consultation with a wide range of interested partiesincluding parental and voluntary groups and LEAsthat was undertaken in late 1999. The correspondents all supported the introduction of specific time scales for the different types of orders, and were convinced that there was a need for them. The hon. Gentleman's amendment may stem from concern about those time scales. I assure him that they will be demanding and will ensure that LEAs carry out their duties without unnecessary delay. The time scales will not facilitate the idea that LEAs could, even if it was thought appropriate, put off action until later, which was one of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. 
 We are still considering the responses, but it might help if I set out our provisional plans. We envisage that the likely time scales for orders such as making or amending a statement, which is the most time-consuming, will not exceed five weeks. In some cases, orders must be carried out to a shorter timetable. For example, when starting the assessment or re-assessment process, we envisage a time scale of no more than a month. We intend to require that reinstatement of a statement takes place within a week, while ceasing to maintain a statement is carried out immediately or on the LEA's proposed date. 
 As I suggested earlier, those timetables are demanding. We have sought to strike a balance between the understandable wishes of parents for speedy compliance with tribunal orders, and the practicalities for LEAs of complying with those orders. The time scales were also informed by the views of the SEN tribunal about how long LEAs would realistically need to comply with an order. 
 The clause is clear and unambiguous. Parents will know the period in which LEAs must comply with orders. Any additional wording may lead to unnecessary arguments and confrontation about the definition of ``promptly'' and ``practicable''. To use the hon. Gentleman's analogy, to be told to produce something ``as promptly as practicable'' does not necessarily provide the clear idea that we believe the clause supplies about what the time scale should be. LEAs will, of course, be free to comply with tribunal orders as soon as is feasible, which may be faster than the time scales set out in regulations. Given that we envisage the likely time scales being as short as is reasonably practicable, I do not see anything further to be gained by adding to the clause, and potentially, doing so could lead to confusion and argumentation. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. She started in a rather disappointing way and I was beginning to sharpen my axe for a potential vote, but she continued helpfully so I put away my axe, and I shall not press the amendment.
 The relatively tight timetable is the important point. To be literary and archaic for a moment, we do not want a situation in which we put this off until the Greek kalends, or never. It wants to be done, it must be done and it is in the children's interests that it should be done. If the time scales are anything like those suggested by the Minister, they are acceptable. Even if a local authority were minded to play for time, there would not be much time to play for. 
 I shall try to draw the Minister on two points now, instead of dragging them into the clause stand part debate. First, what sanctions apply if a local authorityaccidentally or deliberatelycocks a snook and does not comply? I should not ask a hypothetical question, but in what circumstances would the Secretary of State come down like a load of bricks, and what would be the result? It would be helpful to know that there are sanctions which, if necessary, could be enforced. 
 My second pointwhich, I confess, I had not noticed earlieris consistent with some remarks made rather skimmingly this morning about the interaction with Wales. My reading is that subsection (2) implies that, as there will be regulationsto which the Minister helpfully referredthey would, in relation to Wales, require the agreement of the National Assembly. I fully understand that. Will the Minister tell the Committeenow or laterwhether it is envisaged that the tribunal regulations will apply across the board, with the inference, subject only, for example, to provision about the Welsh language, that they will be available in England and Wales, and that they will not be different? The hon. Lady's comments are along the right lines, and I shall not press the amendment to a vote.

Jacqui Smith: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I believe that I said at the start not only that we will lay down time scales, but that failure to comply with an order will leave an LEA open to direction by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as appropriate. In the small number of cases in which parents feel that LEAs are slow in complying with an order, we would expect parents to return to the SEN tribunal for assistance. Currently, the tribunal can advise parents to refer their concern to the Department, which would certainly investigate LEAs that had been lax or slow in complying with an order. The clause will ensure that there are much stricter and more specific timetables, which will provide clarification for parents and local education authorities. First, LEAs will be less likely to fail to fulfil those timetables, and secondly, it will be clear to parents that if they do not fulfil those timetables, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will be able to direct as appropriate.
 In relation to the hon. Gentleman's question about Wales, we would envisage that there would be the same content, which is clearly important, but that there would probably be two sets of regulations.

Tim Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Unopposed Appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Boswell: I do not want to detain the Committee at length but it may be useful to have a short debate about unopposed appeals. When the conciliation procedures and the parent partnership have not worked in resolving disputes and the parents have availed themselves of their right to apply to the tribunal, the tribunal will make a determination because the local authority no longer offers evidence. That is an unfortunate situation and not ideal. It suggests that the authority, with its own resources and expertise, will go to the courtroom door and then walk away from it. The parents and the child in question will have been exposed to all the hassle of such a contentious approach until then. I am not suggesting that there is a way of removing that, or that there should not be a provision for the procedure to take place. Clearly, it is sensible if the local authority is prepared to withdraw. It is a lot better than having to go through the fiction of a hearing in order to make a determination, which is, as it were, a foregone conclusion.
 It is worth the Committee taking time to pause and examine the circumstances of statementing. I do not think that I need to make a long speech about it. Indeed, I regret the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who has another engagement this afternoon, because he has had a great deal of hands-on experience about the matter. However, most hon. Members have experience from their constituencies. Statements are not always as specific as we may hope and I suspect that that is the main contention between parents and LEAs. The core business that the tribunal must do relates to the amount of specification that takes place. 
 At the beginning of my remarks this morning, I averted to the continuing concerns of the Action on Entitlement consortium. It is clear from the consortium's submission to members of the Committee that it is not happy about the matter, in terms of professional reports and how and what part 3 of a statement should specifyI think that is the retained phrase after the Government had second thoughts about altering it to ``setting out''and contain. The consortium suggests, in relation to a particular case, that the statement may simply and vaguely specify therapy from a speech and language therapist. As has been said, a child could get only 10 minutes a term. 
 I am aware that the matter was debated in another place by two heavyweights, Lord Baker of Dorking on our side, and Lord Davies of Oldham for the Government and that the latter said: 
``the hours of speech therapy will be specified''.[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2001; Vol. 622, c. 631.] 
 That does not appear to be precisely tied down, and the Minister may not be able to do that now. It may have to be introduced by guidance and the final version of the code. However, it is important for the Committee to have a sense of the matter because it is probably the area of greatest contention between parents and LEAs. It is the type of matter that will reach tribunal, and an LEA might fight hard until it got to a tribunal before withdrawing its objection and allowing the tribunal to determine to the suit of one party. We should ensure that parents get their rights and have a process that is reasonably specific. That is clearly how parents feel, and it is a matter of good practice for the local authorities. 
 With these general considerations in mind, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, not by speaking substantively about the concept of the unopposed appeals that clause 5 prescribesunopposed appeals are better than opposed appealsbut to try to cut out the problem at an even earlier stage, ideally by conciliation. There should be a determination all round by parties, including the LEA and its professional advisers, to make the matter reasonably straightforward. They should say what they mean, and what they say must mean something, and amount to a meaningful provision. Members of the Committee without a party handle will be concerned about the matter, and at this stage, if not later, it would useful to have a statement from the Minister.

Jacqui Smith: The provisions of the clause will ensure that, when an LEA notifies the SEN tribunal that it will not fight certain appeals, the appeal will be treated as decided in the parents' favour. I am not sure that that has been stated clearly. The LEA will have to take action to meet the parents' wishes within a period that will be set out in regulations.
 The provision will encourage the early settlement of cases by giving parents the assurance that LEAs will be obliged to fulfil any commitments that they make in agreeing that a case can be resolved without going to the tribunal, even though it will not require the tribunal to make a formal order. For that reason, the provision will be doubly beneficial. 
 The change will encourage parents and LEAs to reach early agreement about how the child's needs might best be met, without delaying until a formal tribunal hearing is convened, thereby shortening the time in which the child may not be receiving the provision that would be important for him. Encouraging parents to accept LEA concessions will also help to avoid unnecessary tribunal work and expense on cases, some of which are withdrawn at the last minuteto the benefit of no one. For example, in 1999-2000, more than 1,200 cases were withdrawn before being heard. The provision will help the parent and make the system more efficient to the benefit of all. 
 The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the process of assessment and determining the statement might be the subject of the parents' argument. It is worth pointing out that the clause affects only appeals against decisions by the LEA not to make a statement of SEN, not to reassess an existing statement or not to substitute a school named in a statement for a different school named by the parents. Other more complicated types of appeal have been excluded, such as those against the contents of statements. Those appeals will need the tribunal to consider the parents' appeal in detail and to make a more appropriately detailed order than need be the case in such circumstances. 
 However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must make sure that the statements function most effectively, and that is part of the reason behind our revision of the code of practice. I agree with him that the funding and proposals that the Government have introduced for parent partnership schemes and for conciliation in dispute resolution will be important, but so will the revisions that we are making to the code of practice. Given the representations that have been made about the proposed changes to the code, it is worth emphasising that we have no intention of weakening the legal protection for children with statements, nor of encouraging vague statements. 
 I agree with the hon. Gentleman that vague statements do nothing to secure the right help for a child with SEN nor help a school to know what is required of it to assist a child to learn and progress. It might be helpful if I repeat some of the clarifications made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading. We will make it clear that LEAs are required to specify provisioning statements, as they always have been. We will retain the requirement in the SEN regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty on LEAs set out in the Education Act 1996. 
 Furthermore, the code will state clearly that statements should describe clearly all the child's special educational needs in full. They should set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet and specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs. The statements should describe the arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement, and stress the importance of the school monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year. They should emphasise the importance of the local education authority monitoring the child's progress towards identified outcomes with the school. The revised code will be a significant improvement over and above the current code. I hope that it goes some way towards reassuring people who have been worried about such matters. 
 The guidance will make it clear that there may often be a need for provision to be expressed in terms of hours, equipment or personnel. It will make it clear that local education authorities must not have blanket policies not to quantify provision in statements. In another place, we also made a commitment to enhance guidance on assessments so that it clearly states that LEAs should not introduce blanket policies to prevent people who advise them from commenting on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child. Given those reassurances on the statementing process, and my account of what we hope to achieve through the clause, I recommend that it should stand part of the Bill.

Tim Boswell: The Minister's statement has been helpful. It substantially repeats the Secretary of State's equally helpful statement on Second Reading, as well as reassurances that were given in another place.
 It will, perhaps, not be possible to finalise some details concerning the specifications until the code is produced. However, every Committee member wishes, as far as possible, to clarify the matter. That is our common endeavour. We wish to ensure that situations do not arise in which local authorities are either wilfully vague orto paraphrase the Minister's injudicious wordsshut their eyes and face towards the possibility of receiving advice or of excluding entire categories of applicants or types of provision from a specification. The Committee has almost clarified that matter, and I do not wish to contest the clause. 
 I am sure that the provision for unopposed appeals will be helpful. However, I want the Minister to confirm that it is intended to address what I might term non-determination of a request for a statement. If an argument were to arise about the content of a statement, the matter would be considered by the tribunal, which might properly make recommendations that were not fully consistent with the wishes of either the parents or the local authority but might be their own choice. Have I understood that correctly?

Jacqui Smith: Yes. The clause relates to appeals against a decision by a local authority not to make a statement of special educational needs, not to reassess an existing statement, not to make an assessment of special educational needs, and not to substitute a school named in a statement for a different school named by the parents.
 More complex types of appeal have been excluded for the reason mentioned by the hon. Gentleman: it might be appropriate for the tribunal to consider the parents' appeal in greater detailfor example, it might be helpful for a tribunal to consider the contents of a statement. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Duty to Inform Parent where Special Educational Provision made

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 30, leave out ``inform the child's parent'' and insert
 ``secure that the head teacher inform the child's parent''.

Mr Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 30, after ``parent'', insert ``in writing''.

Evan Harris: This is a probing amendment. I want the Minister to explain the phrasing of proposed new section 317A. Subsection (2) states:
``If the school is a pupil referral unit, the local education authority must secure that the head teacher informs the child's parent that special educational provision is being made for him at the school''. 
That applies when a statement has not been issued but special educational provision is being provided. 
 Similar terminology is employed in subsection (3), which states: 
 ``In any other case, the governing body must inform the child's parent that special educational provision is being made for him there''. 
My amendment seeks to make it clear that the responsibility of the governing body is to secure that the head teacher has a duty to inform the child's parent, or to delegate that function. It is obviously an important section because parents must be are informed of their child's special educational needs and the provision that the school is making to meet them. If that is not already part of the school's procedure, the position should be rectified. However, the matter should be handled sensitively and those imparting the information should have the necessary expertise to answer any questions that parents might raise. 
 The Government may intend that governing bodies will normally delegate the role to the head teacher, acting as a chief executive. However, if they are not explicit, the danger exists that enthusiastic governors may take it upon themselves to do that; with the best of intentions, the chair of governors or the SEN governor may take on the responsibility. I speak without any malice towards those people, but there is a worry that that might be done inappropriately or insensitively. 
 A body representing secondary heads has argued that for a body or a member of a governing body to discuss a pupil's progress or needs with a parent is not in keeping with the Government's intentions in existing regulations or in their recent consultation document. As a governor, I have read that document, which emphasises that governing bodies have an overriding role with the head as the chief executive. My amendment should not affect the governing body's accountability in that respect, because the governing body should call heads to account when they fail to inform parents. 
 Section 317(2) of the 1996 Act defines the responsible person as being 
``in the case of a county, voluntary or grant-maintained school, the head teacher or the appropriate governor''. 
It does not necessarily follow that the responsible person with the duty to pass on the information or delegate it should not specifically be the head teacher. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the phrasing and tell us why my amendment is inappropriate. 
 Amendment No. 16 refers to passing the information in writing, which seems logical and usual when sensitive matters are being discussed. I note in passing that, if the amendment proved acceptable, the same provision would have to apply to pupil referral units and an extra amendment would be needed.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point when he states the need for sensitivity on this issue. It is a sensitive matter when children have special educational needs and a prescription of provision for those needs is being made. People may be intellectually and emotionally involved, and that needs careful handling.
 I am minded of a recent incident involving a school. In 14 years of service in this place, I have not previously experienced such a situation. A racial allegation was made. The matter required the attention of the full governors and a good deal of time from the management of the school. I was satisfied that, in the end, the school had acted entirely properly. In the light of that, and because the parents of one child were especially unhappy about the matter, I suggested to the school that, if such cases were to arise, it might consider building an independent person into its procedures. Decisions would not, in that case, be seen simply as something cooked up within the school system, albeit by the governors. 
 The point raises wider issues of governorship, which we should perhaps not debate here. I mention it only because it is fresh in my mind, and because we must have regard to the sensitive interface between parents and school. I understand the idea that the right person for the role is the head teacher, which is the substantial point of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. It would certainly be helpful to have the Minister's input. Perhaps she could say how the code or guidance might tie the matter down or encourage such a practice. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 16 was more banal but, nevertheless, important. I am not suggesting that the right approach is a cold and impersonal letter, saying, ``Your child has the following problems; this is what we're going to do about them.'' That might be extremely inappropriate. The best approach might be for the teacher to take the parent aside and say, ``We will send you a letter shortly, which tells you about your son or daughter, how we see her or him, and what we are going to do.'' The intention behind the amendment was to return to the issue of specificity, which we debated earlier. If there is a lot of vague talk about doing something for the child, which is not tied down in writing, and no statement is necessarily involved, it will not be clear what would constitute delivering undertakings and meeting needs, and what would constitute a failure to meet needs. Unless there is an audit trail, simply taking the parents aside and telling them what the school will do would not be sufficient for future reference. 
 We approach the matter in a constructive spirit. We are aware of the sensitivities and anxious that the practice and the legal provision should be right. It would be stupid to create a legalistic provision that required only a narrow and formal response. On the other hand, if we merely provide for a general duty to inform, without an understanding as to how things should be done as a matter of good practice, vagueness might creep in, which could give rise to subsequent recrimination. The matter can be resolved, and I hope that the Minister will do it for us.

Jacqui Smith: Clause 7 is designed to bring clarity and consistency to the information given to parents on the identification of a child's special educational needs. Importantly, it therefore ensures that parents can play a part in meeting those needs, and raise concerns about the provision being made. It provides for parents to be informed when community, foundation and voluntary schools, pupil referral units and relevant LEA-funded nursery providers begin to make that special educational provision. In doing so, it addresses the potentially unsatisfactory situation in which parents are not always told that special educational provision is being made for their children.
 Some schools tell parents that their children have been identified as having special educational needs and that provision is being made for them. Some schools tell parents that their children are receiving extra help, but not that they have special educational needs. Some schools do not tell parents at all, which leaves some parents misunderstanding the true position and some ignorant of the fact that SEN provision is being made for their child. Currently, the first time that parents find out that their child has been identified as having SEN can be when the LEA tells them that it is considering whether to assess the child for a statement. It is not only a case of ensuring that parents have information. If parents are not aware that special educational provision is being made, they are not in a position to use their knowledge and understanding of their child to help teachers to meet the child's needs. Clause 7 aims to ensure that the parents of children who have been identified as having SEN, but who do not have statements, are informed that special provision is being made. 
 In his amendment, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raises the role of governing bodies and the distinction between the position set out in the Bill in relation to pupil referral units and that for schools. The LEA is responsible for those institutions in the case of pupil referral units, and the governing body is responsible in the case of maintained schools. That is why we have placed the legal duty to inform parents on those bodies. That follows the way in which such responsibilities are generally allocated in education legislation. However, a letter from an LEA informing parents that their child has special educational needs may be intimidating. Parents may be more comfortable if they are informed by the head teacher of a PRU. That is why new subsection 317A(2) makes provision for head teachers at PRUs to inform parents. 
 The same considerations are not necessarily true in the case of governing bodies. We want to give schools maximum flexibility in deciding who should notify parents. Governing bodies of schools, to which we have alluded in previous debates, must use their best endeavours to ensure that SEN provision is made for children. It seems appropriate that they should have legal responsibility for notifying the parents of children with special educational needs. Of course, they can choose to delegate that responsibility to the head teacher or the SEN co-ordinator, and we would expect that to be done in many cases. However, schools will have the flexibility to choose, and it is not appropriate to reduce that flexibility, as amendment No. 23 would do, by requiring the head teacher to inform parents in all cases. 
 Such flexibility is in keeping with our general approach to the responsibilities of governing bodies. For example, the recently issued terms of reference regulations for governing bodies show that they should play a strategic role, which implies that duties should be delegated. I see no conflict in recognising that while legal responsibility rests with the governing body, the responsibility for contact with the parent should, in most cases, be delegated to the head teacher or the SEN co-ordinator.

Tim Boswell: I want to reinforce the helpful formulation that the Minister has given. I understand that the obligation on the governing body would be to ensure that the information is delivered, rather than to do the delivering. That seems a perfectly reasonable distinction between a strategic and an operational function.

Jacqui Smith: That is exactly right. The hon. Gentleman is extremely helpful this afternoon.

Hilary Benn: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it would be good practice if the communicationpresumably in the form of a lettercame from a member of staff at the school rather than a named governor? An important principle has been raised. In my experience as a governor over many years, I communicated directly with parents only if they had raised a specific point with me that related to an appeal function or some such matter. Information about the progress and education of individual children ought, as a matter of form and good practice, to be communicated by a member of staff rather than by governors.

Jacqui Smith: I agree that that would be good practice, and it is in line with our approach to governing body responsibilities. The legal responsibility is vested in governing bodies, and, in this case, they have the responsibility to ensure that that information is provided and for the strategic overview of how that takes place. Although it would be up to schools, it would be good practice for such information to be communicated not simply by a head teacher but possibly by a special educational needs co-ordinator or the pupil's form teacher.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend is right that the regulations and the law should not exclude a governor from communicating. I can envisage a case involving a primary school in which the governor with responsibility for overseeing special needs had such a close relationship with the staff and the pupils that parents would consider it perfectly natural for that governor to communicate with them. It is right to leave the options open, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that good practice would point to the teacher in most cases.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friends haves shown that the discretion and flexibility that the clause allows schools would be important in such circumstances.
 Amendment No. 16, too, would limit schools' discretion in a way that would not be helpful. Schools would always have to inform parents in writing. The clause will not prevent schools from informing parents in writing if they want to do so, but many schools may decide that informing parents verbally might be a better way to fulfil the duty. For example, it might be appropriate for such matters to be discussed at a parents' evening. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to invite a parent who, for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Daventry, might not be confident about receiving a letter, to discuss the matter so that that parent could have his or her anxieties dealt with immediately. Not everyone is as used to receiving a letter as Members of Parliament are, whether it is formal or otherwise. To restrict the communication of such information in that way would be unreasonably inflexible. Schools may prefer the more informal approach, which might be the most appropriate in such circumstances. However, the school should have flexibility. 
 The hon. Member for Daventry expressed anxiety about whether, by allowing schools not to communicate such information in writing, the Government might leave parents without necessary information. Parents can be assured that they will know what is going on because of the revised SEN code of practice and its emphasis on keeping parents informed of action taken to help their child and the outcomes of that action. The strategies employed to help a child with SEN will be recorded in an individual written education plan that will contain information about short-term targets for the child, the teaching strategies to be used, the provision to be put in place, the date for reviewing the plan, and the outcome of any action taken. The guidance will also make it clear that the individual education plan should be discussed with the child and the parents. 
 I do not believe that I am being too optimistic in suggesting that there is consensus in the Committee about the importance of keeping parents informed about their children's special educational needs so that they are engaged in the process. That will be beneficial not only because parents have a right to such information, but because it is likely to lead to better educational outcomes for their children, which is our primary concern. 
 As far as school governing bodies, local education authorities and pupil referral units are concerned, we believe that the clause as drafted puts the responsibility in the correct place. It also provides appropriate flexibility in terms of the method of communication, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Daventry feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Evan Harris: I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say. I accept her point about the difference between responsibility and the flexibility to delegate it, and on that basis I am happy to withdraw my amendment, which tends to remove some of that flexibility. In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) she said that the governing body should be obliged to ensure that parents are informed, but the clause as drafted states merely that
``the governing body must inform''.
 Perhaps it would clarify matters if the clause could be amended at a later stage, so that it states that the governing body must secure that the child's parents are informed. That would satisfy everyone, because although it would make it clear that the duty to secure provision of information lies with the governing body, it is not so bald as to state that 
``the governing body must inform''. 
Such a statement might lead some governing bodies to believe that, on the altar of flexibility, they can wade in. 
 The hon. Member for Leeds, Central and I have made an important point. Governors sometimes need help to know what their responsibilities are and the way in which such matters are delegated in schools. Although I shall withdraw my amendment, I leave that thought with the Minister.

Tim Boswell: This has been an extremely useful debate and the Minister has done her best to address the Opposition's concerns. I intend not to brandish my amendment but to touch on two or three points that remain, or which have been prompted by the debate. The first concerns cases where there is a temporary special educational need, including temporary disabilities, such as a broken leg. We do not often talk about such cases, but they are worth considering and might be consistent with the Minister's wish to be flexible in the delivery of provision. As far as I know, such cases constitute a special educational need and require some addressing by teachers, although the Minister may tell me otherwise. In my experience, they have almost always been handled well and are relatively easily manageable. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether such cases will be excluded.
 My second point concerns provision in amendment No. 16which, as I said, I do not intend to pressfor a proper audit trail. Here, I am thinking much more of long-term or permanent provision than of temporary provision. I wonder whether the matter might be served by establishing an understanding, at least, that confirmation in writing will be secured where requested by the parent. Although we might not be in the business of drafting last-minute amendments, perhaps we should consider providing guidance. I shall leave that thought with the Minister. 
 That leads me neatly to my third point, which in a sense is a by-product of our now relatively rapid progress. Of course, the clause is concerned with provision and notifying parents of it. If there is provision for a special educational need, ipso facto there is a special educational need to provide for. Where that is so, clause 2which will oblige LEAs to provide information for the parents of a child with special educational needscuts in. Before we move on, it would be helpful if the Minister could satisfy us on two points, the first of which is the nature of the information network involving the school and the LEA. In reality, it is most likely to be concerned with funding from special educational needs budgets and the wish to access funds for the provision in question. We need to tie together the different means by which the same condition, and provision for it, is notified to the LEA. The second point is the question of closing the loop. If that happens, how will the LEA discharge its obligation to provide information to the parent? 
 Let us envisage a scenario in which a headteacher or special needs co-ordinator, acting with the governors' knowledge and consent, or even at their instruction, discusses with the parents the provision required for a child with challenging behaviour. The matter would go to the LEA, as part of the normal business of trying to access special needs budgets. The LEA could then advise the parents, for example, about their legal rights. 
 I do not know exactly how that process would work. Does the Minister envisage a standard protocol? I am not sure that there should be one. If a matter is comparatively minor, a heavy mailing out from the LEA might be inappropriate, and poke up concern disproportionate to the case. Nevertheless, we must think through how the obligation to advise the parent about provision fits in with the LEA's obligation to advise in cases of need.

Jacqui Smith: Although I realise that the broken leg to which the hon. Member for Daventry referred was just an example, I do not see that as a special educational need. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that schools should deal with such a situation practically, quickly and without undue fuss, and discuss with the parents what would be appropriate for the child. However, I do not believe that that example comes under the general category of special educational need.
 We got slightly bogged down in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's questions, and perhaps that was meit is Thursday afternoon. The clause requires schools to give parents information about the provision of special educational needs. That links it to clause 2, which gives LEAs a statutory duty to provide information and to make an independent parental supporter available to parents whose children have special educational needs. 
 The hon. Gentleman moved into the area of funding. LEAs have an important role in monitoring special educational needs and a duty to identify pupils whose special educational needs they should assess. We discussed assessment for a statement, and it is clear that LEAs cannot do that without good communication with schools. Currently, LEAs have responsibilities to assess children's special educational needs, to make statements if appropriate and to ensure that funding is available for the provision required in a statement. That answers some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. If he was concerned about the monitoring of the financial situation, I agree that where resources are delegated to schools, there must be clearer accountability frameworks. The Government are developing those to clarify what LEAs should expect from schoolswhich must also be communicated to parentsand what they, as LEAs, should provide. I hope that that goes some way towards dealing with the hon. Gentleman's points. 
 On those bases and because there is general agreement on the objectives of the clause, I should hope that the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Daventry will withdraw their amendment.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister who is doing her best. If I did not make myself clear, I must explain my concerns, which have largely been answered.
 My prime concern was not about funding. My point was that if a school had a pupil with SENs, it would presumably get in touch with the LEA to obtain advice. Given that situation, I am not necessarily discussing a statement; I am discussing other needs. Where a school tried to obtain additional funds for extra provision would come out in the wash. That is a simple statement of fact that was not designed to pave the way for a long debate on funding, which, of course, would not have been allowed. 
 My concern is that when a parent gets the unpalatable or surprise news that their child has SENsthe example that I gave of challenging behaviour that must be managed within a school is perhaps the most relevantthey will hear it from the governor, the head teacher or by whatever method the governors consider appropriate. By inference, a LEA obligation cuts in at that time to ensure that a parent is involved. Indeed, the LEA has that general obligation under clause 2. That does not create a difficult situation, but it does require greater thought and further consideration of both the code and the kinds of information that are available to the parent. For example, the school tells the parent that there are SENsI do not intend to pursue the question of whether that should be done in writingbut the parent should have the right to access material from the local authority that explains what SENs are and how they operate, which is a consideration that goes wider than the current narrow provision. 
 My concern is no more complex than that and I suspect it to be a matter of good practice, which I shall leave to the Minister's good sense to sort out.

Jacqui Smith: We have made some progress. It is worth pointing out that we see a continuing important role for LEAs in relation to the type of advice that the hon. Gentleman was discussing in the area of SENs. He is right, and we now have a clearer idea about the relationship between clause 2 and that situation.
 Once a parent has been informed that their child has SENs and is receiving provision from and by the school, the parent may want to avail themselves of the parent partnership services offered by the LEA. It is therefore importantI am unsure whether we touched on this in our debate on clause 2to remind hon. Members that under clause 2 provision for an independent parental supporter is now available for parents of all children with SENs, as opposed to the current system, where the named person is available only for parents of children with statements. Yes, at that stage the parent partnership scheme may be appropriate to support the parent, and that is clearly an important objective of the scheme, which would be organised under the auspices of the local education authority.

Evan Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Review or Assessment of Educational Needs at Request of Responsible Body

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Boswell: An examination of the review, which would be generated by a responsible body, will take place if the LEA has not made the assessment within six months. Can the Minister confirm that parents will already be availing themselves, or are able to avail themselves, of the parental partnership, because they are within the system? We have already discussed the slightly rebarbative nature of official notices. Given that the Bill concerns real people, who are not Members of Parliament and therefore not used to reading official notices, they could be rather frightened by communications that start ``heretofore'' or ``under section X of the regulations.'' We need to know that there will be someone friendly to take them through the process to explain their legal rights, so that what is designed as a protection for parents and schools does not accidentally transmute into a subversion of the process. I merely flag up that issue.

Jacqui Smith: I am willing to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, during assessment, the parent partnership services are available to all parents of children with special educational needs. We envisage that that advice and support will be offered by parent partnerships throughout the country, as they are already by existing partnerships.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Duty to Specify Named School

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Boswell: I shall speak equally briefly to this clause. The duty to specify a named school is waived if the child's parents have made suitable arrangements for special educational provision. Who is to judge whether those arrangements are suitable? I am sure that the intention is right, but I would like to know how the clause will work in practice.

Jacqui Smith: The arrangements made by parents would not be suitable if, for example, they did not include funding for a reasonable period; case law is clear about that. LEAs will be able to rely on the provisions in clause 9 only if parents have made suitable arrangements. Clause 9 will not apply if the arrangements do not include reasonable funding.
 Clause 9 seeks to ensure fairness and clarity in the exercise of the duty placed on LEAs to specify a school by name in part 4 of the statement of special educational needs. That expressly allows authorities not to name a particular school if a child's parents have made other suitable arrangements for their education, typically by paying for a place at a independent school. In those circumstances, the LEA avoids having to name a school in the child's statement, and avoids having to keep open a place at a school that could be taken by another child. The clause safeguards the position of the child, while ensuring that LEAs make efficient use of their resources. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Discrimination Against Disabled Pupils and Prospective Pupils

Tim Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
 We have done our best on SENsalthough there may be one or two further flurries on the matter laterand we now turn to disability discrimination. I suspect that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, is about to come into play. I bid a fond farewell to her ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and welcome the hon. Member for Barking to her moment in the sun. 
 These are hugely important issues. Members of the Committee will have gathered from debate on Second Reading that Conservative Members are not minded to object in principle to the inclusion of education in the disability discrimination field. I need not rehearse our thinking on that, and I shall not seek to do so. 
 I should like the Minister to give some account, during this debate or the clause stand part debate, of the interaction between the SENs part of the Bill and the disability discrimination part of the Bill. We do not want to set off on what lawyers would call a forum shopping exercise by taking one route to deal with SENs, then transferring to another route to have a go under disability discrimination. If I may say so, that might prolong the agony. It is important to understand how the two elements dovetail in the resolution of individual, as well as collective, cases of difficulty. 
 The amendment is a probing amendment. Proposed new subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State powers by regulation to 
``prescribe services which are, or...are not, to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2)'' 
that is, unlawful discrimination 
``as being 
 (a) education; or 
 (b) an associated service.'' 
In what kinds of situation might the Government wish to draw the line? I recall from earlier custom and practice on the interface, when education was excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that several cases lay on the margins. We heard about examples such as the exclusion of diabetics from school trips and of disabled pupils from work experienceareas that, because they were not defined as education, were possibly caught by the 1995 Act. We are now perhaps entering lawyers' territory. 
 I am not seeking in any way to subvert the inclusion of education in the Bill, but it would be helpful to know what will be left out and in what circumstances. I understand the Government's position. Anyone who has ever been a Minister will know that Governments want to have saving clauses, sometimes even to deal with situations that nobody has thought about. However, I should like the Minister to clarify what is likely to left be out. I hope that it will be as little as reasonably possible, given that we have embraced the concept of the inclusion of education. It would also be helpful if she could speak about the wider aspects of how the provision will operate and how it will mesh with the SENs side. 
 I make neither of those requests in a querulous way. We are happy to express our good will towards clauses, but is important that they do not become discredited because they do not work as well as we would have wished owing to unintended consequences. Will the Minister respond to this probing amendment with that in mind?

Margaret Hodge: I take this opportunity to say how delighted I am to have the privilege of serving under your fair and judicious chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, even at this latter end of the Parliament.
 I join my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in saying how pleased I was to introduce the Bill, which fulfils another part of our manifesto commitment on comprehensive rights for disabled people. It puts right a flaw that has incensed many hon. Members: that education in schools, colleges and universities has not been covered by previous legislation on disability discrimination. 
 To put that in context, one line in the report of the Disability Rights Task Force led to the Bill and, therefore, the clause. I shall read it to the Committee because it encapsulates what disabled people felt about exclusion of education from previous disability discrimination legislation. It asked: 
 ``What value do we place on education when a disabled person has rights against discrimination under the DDA when going to the cinema, but not whilst at school or college?'' 
That reflected an outrage that we are delighted to put right. I am pleased that the Opposition have come to accept that it is unacceptable for that vital part of life not to be covered by disability discrimination legislation.

Tim Boswell: We should accept that as a consensual and helpful comment. However, I want to state for the record that subsequent clauses of the Bill will unpick the arrangements which, although temporary and imperfect, were made in the 1995 Act by the then Government--of whom I was some little part--to run past issues of disability sensitivity in higher and further education. We may want to return to those matters when debating resources, but I do not want the Minister to think that they all emerged from a blank sheet of paper and that no one had thought about them before.

Margaret Hodge: I accept indeed what the hon. Member for Daventry says about those matters having been thought about, but it is a shame that they were not acted on before. It is delightful to be part of a Government who are putting them into legislation.
 I turn to the issues which the hon. Gentleman raised, appropriately, and which we thought through carefully. The first was the interaction between SEN legislation and disability discrimination legislation. We agree that clarity is necessary, so we decided that, in relation to schools, both disability discrimination and SEN issues should be dealt with by one tribunal. That will ensure clarity. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the SEN provisions amend part IV of the Education Act 1996, which covers special educational provision, and the disability provisions largely amend the DDA, to ensure that the rights of access of disabled pupils, students and adult learners to education are protected. Bringing those amendments together under one tribunal will ensure clarity for all users of education services--children and their parents, students and adults. 
 The amendment is a probing amendment. I am delighted that it is because it would remove the regulation-making powers that enable us to prescribe what are education or associated services for the purposes of the duty on schools not to discriminate against disabled people. The history is that the Disability Rights Task Force considered what should be included as education issues to be covered by disability discrimination legislation and used the phrase, ``the life of the school'', which goes beyond the narrow definition. It said that it wanted to secure a new set of anti-discriminatory duties covering the life of a school. That is what we have attempted to provide in clauses 11, 12 and 13, which take forward the task force's recommendation. The life of the school is what is meant by the ``education and associated services'' that a school will offer its pupils. If it will help the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I will give some details of what that covers.

Tim Boswell: That would be immensely helpful. As the Minister has correctly surmised, it was the aim of my probing amendment.
 What happens when schools are venues for activities that are not directly controlled by the governors, although they have their permission, such as after-school clubs? In such areas, we need to clarify who has responsibility in order to avoid embarrassment to governors in matters beyond their control.

Margaret Hodge: This is a complex area. Some activities of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred are already covered by part III of the DDA, but we must ensure that all activities that take place in schoolseducation and associated servicesare covered. If I give examples of the activities that we will cover in regulations, it will give the hon. Gentleman an idea of what we hope to achieve.

Tim Boswell: I assure the Minister that I am not trying to be difficult, and nor is she, but I would like to be absolutely clear. If an activitysuch as an after-school clubis under the direct control not of the governors but of the person or body carrying out the activity, would that person or body be responsible in the event of litigation? I understand if the Minister does not want to answer that now, but it needs clarification, because governors, and others, might want to protect themselves.

Margaret Hodge: I know about after-school clubs, regardless of my ministerial responsibilities. We hope as soon as possible to make governors responsible for such mattersunder the Regulatory Reform Bill that is going through Parliament. After-school clubs will be covered under the new anti-discriminatory provisions in the Bill.
 A parents' evening is the kind of activity covered by part III of the DDA. If a parent suffered discrimination and could not participate in a parents' evening solely because of a disability, he or she could take action under the existing part III. A child's inability to participate in an after-school activity, even one not currently run directly by the governors, will be incorporated in the proposed revision of part IV that we are debating.

Mr Win Griffiths: I should like to clear up a nicety of devolution. In the first part of the Bill, we were looking to amend an earlier Education Act, so we were discussing a devolved matter. For example, clause 5(6) states:
 ``Regulations under this section, so far as they relate to Wales, require the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales.'' 
We are now discussing an Act that covers what is not, strictly speaking, a devolved matter. However, proposed new subsection (3) states: 
 ``The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe services'' 
that are defined as being 
``(a) education; or 
 (b) an associated service.'' 
Education is a devolved matter. In one sense, I can understand why the clause is written like that, but is the matter covered by the concordats between the Welsh Assembly and the Minister's Department? How will the consultation process work in this instance?

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend touched on an issue that has greatly concerned us. Equal opportunities are reserved to the Department, but education, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is a devolved matter. It has been very complicated to get the right relationship between the devolved responsibilities to the education authority and the reserved responsibilities of anti-discrimination. We consulted closely with officials in Wales and with Members of the Welsh Assembly while developing our proposals for legislation, and I reassure my hon. Friend that, if the Bill is enacted, we will ask the Disability Rights Commission to prepare codes of practice about the implementation of duties. We will ask them to produce separate chapters, if not separate codes, for both Wales and Scotland. Therefore, there will be ample consultation to give regard to the differences that are inevitably present in a devolved situation. I hope that that assures my hon. Friend.
 In order to help the Committee, I return to the matters that will be covered by the proposed regulations. Obviously, we will cover all teaching during core school hours. We will also cover school assemblies, field tripsschool trips for a child with diabetes would be coveredexchanges and study-support activities, which was a further example to which the hon. Member for Daventry referred. We will also cover all extra-curricular activities, such as sport, music or drama coaching and sports activities in which pupils represent their school. We will also cover all school trips with an educational element, break times, school meal provision, after-school clubs provided by parents' associations with the permission of the school, which have also been referred to, non-educational school trips, childcare, and leisure activities such as school discos. [Laughter.] They are a very important part of school life.

John Randall: I was thinking of other activities that may take place in a school environment. Would cadet forces be covered?

Margaret Hodge: I will seek detailed advice on that and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it. Off the top of my head, I think that cadet forces may well be a part III issue under the old DDA. I am receiving nods from my officials.

John Randall: I wondered because of the current debate about disability within the armed forces.

Margaret Hodge: I understand the matter being raised. In order to be accurate, it will be better for me to write to the hon. Gentleman about it, and I undertake to do that.
 I shall clarify some complexities. Part III would cover services to parents involved with the school. Such services as parent-teacher association meetings, parents' evenings, open days for new and prospective parents, and the community use of schools will continue to be covered by the provisions. We seek the power to make regulations about education and associated services because, as the debate has illustrated, there may still be areas around the margins in which it is unclear to the school, or others, which set of DDA duties apply to which activities; is it part III or part IV? 
Mr. Boswell rose

Mr Bill O'Brien: I call the Minister[Interruption.]

Tim Boswell: Well, it is only a matter of time, Mr. O'Brien.
 Can the Minister clarify that anything that goes on in a school will be covered either by part III or part IV? The converse of that is that the provision for regulation is about the designation between the various duties. It is not about finding categories that are left out, unless they are wholly exceptional categories, such as the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred, which may fall for other reasons as excepted occasions. When I tabled the amendment, I was anxious to find out what had been left out of the provision, but I think that the hon. Lady is saying to me, unless I misinterpreted her remarks, that everything is under one heading or another. Will she clarify the situation?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman is right that the provision gives us the facility to ensure that we can properly categorise whether the measure is a part III or part IV obligation.
 I wish to return briefly to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).

Tom Levitt: For Wales.

Margaret Hodge: We are all getting new titles this afternoon. We shall ensure that the specific interests of Wales are taken on board when developing the necessary codes of practice. There will not necessarily be a separate chapter, however. I would not like my hon. Friend to leave the Committee not knowing that. Having given those reassurances, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister. She has taken a certain amount of incoming fire. However, it has been friendly fire and was designed to elucidate on such matters. I see that the hon. Member for Bridgend is now leaving the Room, having fired his bullets. As a vicarious Welsh person through marriage, it clearly would be unfortunate if the effect of the duties were to be materially different under the two Administrations.
 The Minister has confirmed that everything is in, unless for some exceptional reason, it is out and that her regulation-making powers that I always bridle atif only in theory and temporarilyare about how she assigns those duties between the different parts of the Disability Discrimination Act. In the light of that and bearing in mind that, broadly speaking, there are safeguards within the Act and through the Disability Rights Commission that are designed to make the safeguards do-able and not unduly onerous or unreasonable, we can give her a fair wind both for her explanation and for the clause.

Tom Levitt: The reference of the hon. Member for Daventry to his being temporarily non-ministeriala phrase that applies to most of usmeant in a general way that we were all temporarily non-disabled.
 I refer to the Disability Rights Task Force. How it was set up within weeks of the Government coming to power in 1997 and the work that was done with it not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), showed a sense of purpose right from the start. We are now witnessing one of the first positive outcomes from the Government's response to the Disability Rights Task Force operation. It was a privilege to work closely with my hon. Friend throughout 1999 before I was moved to my present position in another Department. I am therefore especially proud to be here today. 
 To return to the clause, I want to pick up the idea that I mentioned this morning that someone with a disability is not necessarily the same as someone with special educational needs. I am sure that there was a time in the past when people with disabilities that did not impose an educational or learning imposition or burden on them were nevertheless treated as having one. It was only because of the lack of insight, inspiration, care and thought by that temporarily non-disabled majority who run things that the needs of such people were not met. What the clause doesI regret that the amendment would remove this provisionis to provide a legislative framework for what is already being done, in terms of the doubling by the Government of the grants available for disabled students and of the grants available for schools to put in lifts and ramps, so that they do not have to meet the cost out of normal revenue expenditure. 
 The temporarily non-right hon. Member for Uxbridge led me to think about climbing walls, which are found in many gymnasiums. The thought went through my mind that providing a ramp would allow people access to a climbing wall. That is not as silly as it sounds, because there is no reason why people with disabilities should not access climbing wallsit is merely that they do not access them in the same way as everyone else. We should facilitate that part of their wider education. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is aware that when we talk about schools making the necessary accommodations to comply with the clause, we must also consider acoustics, lighting and decor. All of those are important in making a disabled-friendly environment within schools.

Laura Moffatt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Bill O'Brien: I want to draw attention to the fact that we are still considering the amendment, which would delete subsection (3) of the clause. The hon. Gentleman has not yet addressed that. To broaden the debate would be a discourtesy to the Committee.

Tom Levitt: I take your point, Mr. O'Brien. With respect, the kind of provisions that I was talking about may not be possible if the amendment is accepted, and if the power to set regulatory orders is successful. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Barking a question, which I am sure that she will wish to answer in her wind-up: given that the Disability Discrimination Act had a timetable of implementation, where do these provisions fit into that timetable? When can we expect to see the provisions come into effect, should the Bill become law?
 Another nice little phrase came into my mindthe Government are committed to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, not just in comprehensive schools but comprehensively throughout the education process.

Tim Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Disabled Pupils not to be Substantially Disadvantaged

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Boswell: I pause only briefly, as we are making good progress and there is an important debate to come. Will the Minister say what substantial disadvantage is? I suppose that insubstantial disadvantage is not a concept worth considering, except in a philosophical seminar. Does it, in effect, mean that disabled people are not to be disadvantaged at all, for all practical purposes? Alternatively, does it mean something else? Have I missed the point of it?

Margaret Hodge: As a quasi-lawyeror one who is pretending to be so for the afternoonI must explain that the word ``substantial'' exists under the current DDA framework. Its technical legal definition is that it is more than minor or trivial. It is the trigger that should be used for reasonable adjustments. It is the trigger on employers that also exists under part II of the DAA. It is a relatively lower test than the trigger under part III, and deliberately so. We have been able to put together a good framework on discrimination in education. The test under part III is whether it would become impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access a service. It is a better trigger in educational circumstances.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Accessibility Strategies and Plans

Tim Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 13, line 6, at end insert
`(c) an analysis of the cost of implementing such plans.'.
 We are making good progress. We have had some lively debates on the matter. We should not necessarily wear out the sky if we receive satisfaction on the matter of needs. Reading the debates that took place in the other place, I gained the impression that Ministers were a little coy on that subject. The Minister will know what I mean from previous conversations. I shall not trespass on any confidences. I wish only to reproduce what I said to her. One factor that gave us pause in introducing the full import of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was the potential cost. Clause 14 is about preparing accessibility, strategies and plans. It is a local education authority and a schools clause, and it is welcome. However, it makes the point that there are important consequences for schools' finances if the DDA requirements are to be enacted. 
 In a sensethis is a precursor to discussions that we may have at a later stage on post-16 educationmuch of the loading may be post-16 and it would be inappropriate to bring in this measure at this point. It may well be more relevant later on. I am talking not only about further education colleges: universities also have problems. Nevertheless, considering the schools' budget alone, I notice a certain coyness on the part of the Government in coming clean about the cost of the measures. 
 On Second Reading, the Secretary of State and others spoke of the schools access initiative. I certainly welcome any additional funds that can be made available. As the Minister will know, an interesting analysis has been made of the work of the schools access initiative so far, and she may want to say a little about that. It was somewhat uneven. It was good if schools were already on the net and had access, but it was not so good if they had not heard of the system, had not done much with it or had not got round to participating in it. Part of the argument for the planning duty may be that, as all local authorities will have to produce such plans, they will even themselves up in relation to schools access. 
 I am sure that, were he present, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings would say that in his experience there is a huge disparity of need. Some LEAs have already worked hard at access, whereas others have not left first base. Assuming that plans are made on a reasonably coherent basis, we should know more about what needs to be done. In fairness, that can be done over a prescribed periodto use a word that appears in the clause. Ministers have helpfully suggested that resources would be available for much of that time. 
 I shall make two points in asking the Minister to be more explicit about what is available. First, let us suppose that LEAs complete their accessibility plans and find that the cost of implementation exceeds the solution figure--even the amount that the Government have put aside--so there is not enough money to go round. That is a likely scenario in terms of capital. Ministers must realise what they have done because they will have to decide how to scale back or re-phase the timing. That may be realistic for physical mobility problems, but Ministers will need to know what to do. 
 Secondly, there is the question of current spend. As I said to the Committee, in most cases, additional capital expenditure is likely to generate additional revenue costs, however welcome and supported by the schools access initiative and the standards fund. That is partly because of the physical maintenance of the new assets that have been acquired, as even something as simple as a ramp has to be kept shipshape when people have difficulty with mobility. If they are wheelchair users, they cannot have their position compromised. 
 The same is true of much of the softwareI mean the softer items that are needed to achieve access. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) referred to the importance of signage and lighting. I know from my own work in the disability area that those things are hugely important. However, they do not come for nothing, although that is not a cop-out or an excuse for not providing them. We need to bear in mind the fact that they are likely to have some revenue consequences. 
 The issues of employees and disabled teachers are not explicitly included in the Bill. People with disabilities such as we have referred to should not be excluded from teaching. Many of them would be good at it. 
 I am not suggesting that the Minister should not attempt to do the things I have outlined, but she knows what being a Minister is like and she will have regard to resources. Those matters are always complex in the context of schoolsI except the post-16 sector for the momentbecause they involve LEA resources, central Government resources and initiatives, elements of match funding and how one attracts it and whether it comes from within the public sector or from outside. The private finance initiative is another factor. All those things might go into the pot, especially on the capital side, but there are likely to be revenue implications about which the Government have not been clear. I am not implying that they are being disingenuous. It may simply be that we cannot know what is happening until we have had a chance to consider the matter.

Mr Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's amendment raises an important issue. However, to judge from the debate in the other place and the response from the various voluntary organisations and trade unions involved in this work in the schools, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that the Government have made financial commitments that would considerably improve and open out accessibility for people with disabilities. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may be labouring the point a little, given that debate and the subsequent response from all those who will be directly involved in the work.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience and we are not having a contentious debatenor do I do intend to do so. We are conscious of what was said in the other place, but that does not absolve us from having a debate here. We are conscious, too, of the interests of other providers. The hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted my remarks as suggesting that a barrier exists, that more resources will not be forthcoming and that, to put it in vulgar terms, it is all a big con on the part of the Government, but I am not arguing that. The Government will make some money available in pursuit of a laudable aimto reduce disability discrimination, or introduce civil rights for disabled people, throughout the range of education. It is something of a voyage of discovery. We do not know how much it will cost, how far it will have to go or what the overall revenue consequences will be.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman must surely concede that, as with the Disability Discrimination Act, an awful lot can be done through spending very little money. People can learn about how to behave when their lips are being read, about deciding on decor with disability in mind when repainting the walls, or choosing books with a more accessible font.

Tim Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel embarrassed if I say that I could not agree more. I spend a good part of my time going around the country saying, ``You can do it; find a way'', which is true.
 Some of the new 2004 duties under the Act relate to physical access, although not specifically to education. We do not get such provision for nothing. The proposal may be relatively expensive, and it will have revenue consequences. I am not saying that we shall not improve access--that would caricature the Government's position. We believe that the Bill will improve the position, and we welcome that. However, as local authorities and Governments have other priorities, we must have a slightly better sense of how it will all stack up.

Andrew George: Is the hon. Gentleman not worried that the amendment might create a further barrier to improving access in schools? In my experience of working in the voluntary sector and as a school governor, different costs are involved for exactly the same work. Quotes are much more expensive for work for public and statutory organisations than for voluntary organisations, charities or village halls. The hon. Gentleman's proposal might result in an unrealistic demand for resources when, as the hon. Member for High Peak suggests, there might be more imaginative ways around the problems that have been identified.

Tim Boswell: I do not want to suggest that there is a consensus throughout the Committee when there may not be, but I am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's points. If he will accept it from me, I assure him that I am not trying to make difficulties for the Government. I am saying that, realistically, if the Government commit themselves to a policy, there is a price tag. It may be one that they fully appreciate, in which case they should say so now. It may be one that they need to work out with others and will need to know about later on. If it turns out to be more than they have anticipated and the policy becomes difficult to deliver, they will have to retime their expenditure, cut it back or take it from other priorities.

Laura Moffatt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an accessibility plan as proposed in the clause will help local authorities, especially with new build? Goodness knows plenty of opportunities are now available. Authorities will save plenty of money if due regard is given to accessibility when new buildings are developed, rather than having to spend a lot of money later trying to adapt buildings. Does he not consider that a great advantage?

Tim Boswell: Again, at the risk of embarrassing the hon. Lady, I could not agree more. It is appropriate to do that when a new build is being considered. Reasonable adjustments and necessary adaptations can be introduced at very low cost. That is fine. I know that the hon. Lady's constituency is a new town, but parts of Crawley contain old buildings. Not so long ago, I visited a sixth form college in Stourbridge, which was founded in 1551. It is very reputable and has some modern buildings, but it has an historical ambience and old buildings that are more difficult to adapt. We need some idea of what can be done, and we need to take a realistic approach. That is not contentious. We want to smoke out the Government's views on the approach to take, and their likely strategy should the cost prove greater than they thought or are prepared to acknowledge.
 I agree strongly that the need is for low-cost adjustments, and the hon. Member for High Peak is right to say that there is a danger that people will cop out, saying, ``It'll cost a fortune, guv, and it can't be done''. It usually can be done, and I welcome that. On occasion, my own local authority has been unwilling to provide disability access, even on rebuild within an existing shell, despite my fighting hard for it. It has got out of doing so because of the previous state of the building regulations. I also agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that the voluntary sector contains many examples of perfectly viable solutions at a much lower cost. That differs from the local authority mindsetI am not trying to be derogatorythat requires a Rolls-Royce solution to any problem, regardless of its nature. 
 We are approaching the matter with a degree of flexibility, and we want the legislation to work. We should pause a little to establish the Government's estimate of the cost, and whether they want to aggregate it on hearing of the local authorities' accessibility plans. We also want to know about their resourcing contingency plan. Were we to create a monster that we could not resource, and to undertake commitments that we could not fulfil, we would be failing to serve the interests of a process in which we are all engaged.

Mr Win Griffiths: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. He mentioned that the previous Government shelved such a measure because they were afraid of the cost implicationsparticularly in respect of higher education. However, I should remind him that the National Union of Teachers and SCOPE, in association with Coopers Lybrandgiven that accountancy firms change their names frequently, it may no longer be called by that nameinitiated a study some five years ago. They have produced some excellent work and given good advice to local authorities and schools. Their most recent report ``Within Reach'' was launched only a few weeks ago at the Institute of Directors. Given the venue, I found it difficult to attend but I managed to steel myself. That work shows the considerable preparation that has gone into the Bill, and enabled the Government to introduce it confident that a real difference can be made.

Tim Boswell: I have little difficulty with what the hon. Gentleman says: a tremendous amount has been done, and I welcome that. I have no ideological difficulty with attending the Institute of Directors or one or two other places that I could mention; nor do I have a problem with getting support for the provision. In fact, the hon. Gentleman performed a further service to the Committee by making the important pointwhich was embedded in other contributionsthat it is vital to secure the understanding of the sector. I agree entirely that one needs the teachers at the front line, with the governors, LEAs, pupils and parents also engaged in taking matters forward.
 A great deal of good work has been done, but we do not have the menu--in either euros or pounds--so it may be more expensive than we think. We must face up to the resource implications, which have to be managed. I hope that at the end of the process we can reach the Government's objectives on disability discrimination. However, I am anxious that we do not nod through a measure that we have not costed. There must be no recriminations because we have had to pay three times as much as we expected, or have had to commit to other priorities at the time. I hope that does not happen. 
 It is important that Ministers not only will the endhowever good it may bebut the means to provide it. In a moment, the Minister will tell us that she is doing a great deal, which I accept and do not want to argue about. Nevertheless, do we know what is needed? Do we know how much the plans cost and can we ultimately sustain them?

Andrew George: I want to respond to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Daventry. I must say that there is probably a consensus in the Committee on the issue that he has raised. However, I am uncertain whether establishing that principle through the amendment as worded would help to improve access to schools.
 I shall further elucidate the point that I made during my intervention on the hon. Gentleman. For many years, I have been concerned about the way in which LEAs tender for capital works in schools. From my experience working in the charitable sector, I know that it is possible to build small village halls or playgroup centres for £40,000 to £45,000, which includes bringing services on to a greenfield site. New single classrooms that are bolted on to existing sites cost a minimum of £100,000 to £110,000. I must therefore question whether we have a system that can obtain adequate value for money. I have deep concerns about the way in which local government operates given my experience of both sides of the equation in the charitable sector and local government, 
 I would be worried if LEAsthere are good LEAs and not so good LEAswere given the task of establishing plans to calculate the cost of improving accessibility to schools in the local authority area. If that were the case, we could end up with frightening and unrealistic figures that would put LEAs off, and would lead to doubts about whether it would be right and appropriate to go ahead with the policy. Indeed, the timetables that we hope LEAs will meet would be called into question, and LEAs could appeal to the Government to phase the accessibility requirements that we want schools to establish over a longer period. 
 For those reasons, I have misgivings about the practicalities of inserting the amendment. I agree that a cautious approach and an understanding of the ball park figures in local authority areas is the correct way forward, but it would be wrong to include the amendment.

John Randall: I have some experience of when accessibility was introduced into the retail sector. No one disputes that disabled people should have a right to equal accessibility, and that was implemented in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, no one bales out private companies, and they had to consider carefully how to implement the provisions. Better off companies could bring in builders to provide a Rolls-Royce version, but great ingenuity was applied and disability groups and interested parties were helpful. I know from experience that getting disability groups to discuss how to improve accessibility was very successful. It was also good business since, if a shop is more accessible, it is available to more customers.

Tim Boswell: If there are 8.5 million disabled people in this country and we allow for a reasonable multiplier to account for their carers and family, 20 million people may be involved, which is between 30 and 40 per cent. of the population. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to lose between 30 and 40 per cent. of his customers.

Mr Bill O'Brien: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not follow down that road.

John Randall: I agree, Mr. O'Brien.
 The point I am trying to make is that budgets in the private sector are limited, but much has been achieved under the 1995 Act. However, I am concerned about the LEA system and I have some experience of it. As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, when it is known that a contract emanates from an LEA, tenders do not always reflect the true market value. We all know what happens with public sector tenders, and there is often less flexibility. 
 Schools and LEAs may consider different ways of implementing provisions, and some schools, bearing in mind the pressure they are under, may try to say that it is for the LEA to fund the work while the LEA may say that it is for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made a valid point. There is consensus, and we do not want to impede the provisions, but we must have some idea of how they will be implemented. 
 There will also be local differences, and some areas will have many schools that are difficult to adapt. In the London borough of Hillingdon, some further education sites and listed buildings are being closed--although the provision will be continued--and sold to the private sector because the cost of converting them for accessibility is too high for the local authority. Local authorities must make difficult decisions. 
 The hon. Member for High Peak referred to lifts, which must be considered but which include a maintenance cost. Again, I know from experience of an old shop that the cost of installing and maintaining a lift is substantial and companies must budget for it. I do have concerns, and the problem must be considered. It is easy to say what we want when in Opposition, but it is up to the Government to fund it. We are suggesting an audit, so to speak, of what would be needed, so that the costs would be recognisable. I must point out a problem to my hon. Friend, however. I do not know what approach one would use in examining the costs. It would depend; tenders might be expected. We want to flag up our concern about the possibility of greater overall costsor just to find out the implications of what is proposed.

Tom Levitt: Given the inadequacies of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 it has been a pleasure this afternoon to hear the fervour of converts from the Opposition Benches. I am against the amendment, partly for the reasons explained by the hon. Member for St. Ives and partly for the reason just given by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. The first thing that an adaptability strategy needs is assessment of need. Need is independent of the availability of money. After assessing need, one must assess priorities and look for the easy-win parts of the strategythose that can be implemented quickly, easily and cheaply. At that point one considers a time scale for implementing the rest. Those elements add up to an accessibility strategy, which is not initially dependent on cost.
 It was right to table the amendment, and for us to debate the issue. For four years, before I came to the House, I advised local authorities on making services and information accessible to people with disabilities. I am only sorry that I shall not have the opportunity, in a few weeks' time, to return to that profession, which I enjoyed. If I learned one lesson, it was that the cost of getting things wrong is much greater than the cost of getting them right. It is very important that the right provision is set up, the right advice is taken and needs are tackled in the right way. 
 I would, although it would involve a cost, include in the access strategy an element of awareness training: disability awareness, deaf awareness and visual awareness training for staff. To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, I commend anyone who is building an infants school to visit Chapel-en-le-Frith infants school in my constituency. In my maiden speech, I condemned that schoolwell, I think that it had been condemned alreadyfor its wholly inadequate buildings. On one side of the road was a rotting Victorian building and on the other were leaking 40-year-old huts. 
 Within six weeks of my coming here, the Department for Education and Employment wrote to me saying, ``Here is £1.75 million. Go and build a new school.'' It is an enhanced resource school, with a very big special needs department. There are children with disabilities in the school, and it was built with them in mind from the word go. Even the window sills are only about 2 ft from the floor, which means that the children can look out the window. That is almost unique in an infant school. The design is excellent because the requirements of the childrenand in particular of special needs childrenwere kept in mind throughout. 
 My final point on accessibility strategies is that it is not only the children and further education students who benefit. In a few weeks' time, many schools will be used as polling stations in one election or another, and people who vote will benefit.

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about polling stations. In 1997 I was an election agent and discovered that quite a few polling stations in schools were not accessible. Also, five or six years ago, a local authority put up a nice structure on a sports ground, accessible for disabled people, with suitable toilets and so on. The only point at which those responsible forgot what they were about was when they put in a step. It is necessary to keep a careful eye on planning throughout, or there will be what can only be described as a cock-up.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman is right. Scope reported after the previous two general elections on the non-accessibility of polling stationsoften in schools. High Peak has always emerged well from those assessments. I was about to sit down, but I shall take another intervention.

Tim Boswell: It would be useful to record that at least three members of the Committeethe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), the hon. Member for St. Ives, and Iparticipated yesterday at lunch time, just across the road, in launching the Polls Apart campaign on the accessibility of polling stations. It is an important campaign, and whatever action we can take may improve access to schools.

Mr Bill O'Brien: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not follow that trail.

Tom Levitt: I shall sit down.

Margaret Hodge: That useful exchange follows a lengthy debate on those matters when the clause was considered in another place, and those matters concern the disability rights task force a great deal. Sadly, the hon. Member for Uxbridge has left his seat, so I shall address my remarks to the hon. Member for St. Ives. We do not suggest that all schools should be accessible immediately. Everyone recognises that increased accessibility needs to be planned, which is why the Bill imposes those planning duties on LEAs. However, it must clearly be done within resources.
 I can tell the hon. Member for Daventry that we are far from being coy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak on the work that he has done on behalf of disabled people and his commitment to them as a Member of Parliament. The duties will start for schools in 2002; recognising the greater complexity in the post-16 sector, the basic duties will start in September 2002; the duties of auxiliary aids will start in 2003; and the changes to physical features for the post-16 sector will start in 2005. That is part of the sensible planning in which we are engaged. 
 The amendment is unnecessary because those planning to increase accessibility schools, including post-16 institutions, would need to bear in mind the resources available. With as many as 24,000 schools, and a huge range of post-16 institutions, and with no work having been done yet, it is difficult accurately to estimate the cost of securing total accessibility.

Tim Boswell: The Minister is, of course, right in saying that schools would have to have regard to the resources available. Indeed, that might be a reasonable defence. Is it not implicit in some of the financial material embodied in the explanatory notes, that the Secretary of State should take an increasingly well-informed view on the overall cost to the sector, not least because from time to time he will have to speak with the Chancellor to obtain the necessary resources?

Margaret Hodge: Our Secretary of State has been incredibly successful in securing resources for that and for other aspects. We are proud to have £220 million to spend during the coming three years on school access. I do not wish to bring politics into the arena, but we shall be spending 10 times as much on accessibility to school buildings as was spent in the last year of the previous Government. I can tell the hon. Member for Daventry that we could help future Secretaries of State in their negotiations with the Treasury. In guidance, we could underpin the duty to plan with a note that the plan should include the planning body's analysis of the costs. That might support the negotiations that would need to take place with the Treasury.
 I can tell the several members of the Committee who have raised the subject that the recently published ``Within Reach'' report has given us a helpful steer. It will assist our continuing evaluation of the schools access initiative. 
 It might help if hon. Members understood some distinctions. Within the context of reasonable adjustments that restrict or inform schools' duties, schools will not be required to make adjustments for physical features when they deal with individual children who want to exercise their rights under disability discrimination legislation. The physical adjustments will come through the planning duty on LEAs. That is part of the increasing accessibility over time that is tied in with our plans. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak referred to the sort of measures that schools will have to take. They will include adjusting timetabling of disabled students' lessons, ensuring that those who use wheelchairs have their lessons on the ground floor and do not have to go to the top floor if there is no lift, and ensuring that library books are brought to them if the library is inaccessible.

Andrew George: Will the Minister elucidate a little more on the responsibilities of the LEAs? I am concerned that certain LEAs may want to resist pushing forward with accessibility plans, because they have other priorities or simply cannot be bothered. To do so, they might deliberately inflate the costs of accessibility. What methods will be used to ensure that the estimated costs of accessibility plans for specific schools are realistic, and are not inflated to suppress development?

Margaret Hodge: The Secretary of State will have the power or dutyI am not sure whichto assess those plans. That will give us one mechanism. Another is Ofsted, which will be involved in assessing accessibility to school buildings as a result of an amendment agreed in another place.
 We have never suggested that no costs are related to the duties, or that we have a clear view of how far they extend. However, we are clear about wanting to increase accessibility. We have made extra resources available and will have to review them over time. Some of the costs are explained in the regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley raised the important point that the planning process was a way in which sensible decisions could be made, so we did not need the amendment to inform or restrict the process. That process will ensure that we will proceed with the augmentation of accessibility to school buildings at appropriate times when resources are available. 
 Before I move on, I want to deal with some issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, who made a massive contribution when he had responsibility for educational issues as a Welsh Minister before devolution. It is worth mentioning the great advances in accessibility that have been made in Wales, although, interestingly, it has not had a separate schools access initiative. LEAs in Wales have been able to draw on significant additional resources from the Assembly's new deal moneys and the additional capital funding for schools programme. Also, the additional £85 million allocated from 2001-02 to 2003-04 for school building has provided £300 million for schools in Wales for those three years. 
 The Assembly has also significantly increased, in absolute and percentage terms, the money available for special educational needs priorities under its GEST programmegrants for education, support and training. So there is much to celebrate about the way that these issues have been progressed in Wales, and I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend for his role in that. 
 We must take a commonsense approach to the issue. Schools will have to plan according to the resources available to them. They will be under a duty to implement their plans, so they will have to make sure that they plan only for what they can deliver. It would be wrong for us to be prescriptive in telling schools how to go about the planning process. They will need to prioritise and allocate resources according to those priorities. 
 I have already referred to the schools access initiative and the £220 million that we have made available. I add, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Daventry, that, year on year, we are increasing the revenue moneys available not only for education, but as a direct allocation to schools to enable them to meet their priorities. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said that accessibility was not just about physical access to high buildings, but about access to the curriculum. That is a key part of ensuring that the rights of disabled children in schools are upheld. That is why I am proud of the extra money that we have been able to put into the standards fund. We have a record expenditure level of £26 million this year, much of which goes on training and development for teachers to ensure that they are sensitive to the needs of disabled children. This year's expenditure is greater than last year's, and next year, expenditure will increase to £30 million from the overall special educational needs standards fund of £84 million. That will be spent on SEN training, so that LEAs will be free to spend more. We also should never forget that, nowadays, every governing body has greater freedom to choose how to allocate its budget share. 
 I am conscious that the Committee has worked hard this afternoon, but I want to mention another issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak. Accessibility, both to the school and to the curriculum, is often about much more than resources. I refer to it endlessly when I speak about disability issues, in the House and elsewhere. It is crucial that we change attitudes and culture. Even in discussions with teachers and head teachers, it is clear that we have a long way to go to change attitudes and cultures. People need to think about their attitudes and misconceptions. A little change in attitude, without any money at all, can make all the difference to an individual child's ability to develop his or her full potential and have equality of opportunity in the system. The ``Within Reach'' report made some important findings about attitudes towards including pupils, especially those with physical and sensory impairments. We are conscious of the improvements that have been made, but we equally conscious that there is a long way to goand probably a long way to go among Members of Parliament to understand how unthinkingly we often discriminate against disabled people or impede their full participation in society simply by what we do or how we behave. Inclusion and accessibility do not demand resources but we must work on them. 
 In conclusion, the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Daventry to withdraw it. I am grateful to the Committee for the informed debate that we have had this afternoon.

Tim Boswell: May I start on a note of consensus by saying that I could not agree more with what the Minr said in her conclusion about attitudes to disability issues. If she wants to form a road show to go round the country to say such things in tune, we shall join her. I often say that the most important adjustments are not physical but mental or psychologicalpeople becoming alert to the needs of disabled people who, let us remember, are people first and have a disability second. It is a question of how to deal with them, to meet their commercial needs, as the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggested, and to treat them as fully participating members of society. All that need not cost any money to start with, but there is a fall-out from it.
 Like the Minister, I welcome the tone of the debate; realistically, we will not have a precise figure at any one moment. As she says, when an LEA is planning an individual institution or an accessibility strategy, it must have regard to the level of resources available and may spread the process over time. There are real merits in integration, and I was especially pleased that the Minister mentioned that individual plans could have costs attached; that is realistic. However, there is also an important undertowfrom my experience in my constituency of building works funded by schools' capital, people see one coming. If there is a local authority flavour to a tender, up it goes. I shall not go on about that, but it is terribly important that we get as much done in the most economical way that we can; the debate has been helpful for that. 
 I am conscious of a slight error of omission, which may have occurred because the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is not in Committee this afternoon. Having talked about the Polls Apart initiative, in which three of us participated, it was quite wrong of me not to mention that the hon. Lady came to give a Scottish flavour to the proceedingsnot that a general election is anything other than a United Kingdom election. We all joined in, as we should. 
 Although resources are always the subject of political contention, trying to find the most sensible way forward for disability access to the services in the widest sense that schools provide is what we are all about. We have had a good rehearsal of the matter; we have had some new insights; we have some helpful responses from the Minister. Things may not be as easy as she hopes; there will be thrills, spills, and even shortages of cash ahead, but we are all pointed in the same direction. Having explained our general attitude to the disability provisions of the Bill earlier, I will not spoil things by pressing for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.[Mr. Betts.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 3 April at half half-past Ten o'clock.